By Geoff Page
The only way to access the site of the “cottages” is by turning west off Catalina Blvd. onto Lomaland Drive and driving onto the Nazarene University campus. Just past the intersection of Lomaland Drive and Lomaland Drive – yes there is such an intersection – is a dirt road to the west that is easy to miss.
The four units are on the west side of the dirt road, facing Sunset Cliffs Park below. At the end of the short road are Units #4 and #3.
Unit #4 is a very small building, only 400 square feet according the to the tenants in Unit #3. Unit #3 is a small one-bedroom place next to it. Unit #2 has been empty for 18 years and it looks like it. Unit #1 is referred to as the Corbin House. Unlike the other three, Unit #1 is a substantial house, inhabited, but also in a state of disrepair. This is the house proponents are pushing for historical designation.
The retired couple renting Unit #3 were home and happy to talk about what was happening. Joe and Debbie Corr’s house is small, a one-bedroom. The living room has a spectacular wide view – what some might call a million-dollar view – of the Pacific Ocean below. There is a small deck outside the living room window. The house is mostly wood and concrete block, clearly old.
Joe said he has been living in homes inside the park for almost 40 years, starting with a long stretch in the home at the foot of Ladera St. at Sunset Cliffs Blvd. He relocated to the house on the hill a few years ago.
They were candid about the rent, explaining it was a month-to-month lease of $2,000 a month. That seems a little low in today’s market and considering that view. But, there are a number of reasons why it is not as rosy a deal as it might seem.
First, by some strange twist, the tenants pay property taxes, as the Assessor bills come directly to them. The Corrs said the city explained that it had to pay property taxes on the buildings so it was fitting to have the tenants pay that. Why the city did not just include this cost in the rent is a mystery. How the city calculated the valuations for these places is also a mystery.
Second, according to the couple, the lease agreements states that the tenants maintain the properties, the city takes no responsibility for that. The effect of this arrangement is apparent when looking at the state of the buildings the surrounding property.
Third, there is no trash pick up for the tenants. The city trucks do not come there. At one time, there was an arrangement with the university to handle the trash. According to Joe and Debbie, this fell apart some years ago when the university was sued about its stormwater runoff into the park below. After that, the university refused to maintain the arrangement. What a nice Christian reaction. The tenants said they take their trash out twice a week themselves. They did not say where it went.
Calling this affordable housing might be a bit of a stretch considering all of that.
The couple explained that Unit #4 was a very small structure of 400 square feet. It was an add-on or conversion, not an original structure. They explained that Unit #2 has been vacant since 2007. They said they were told that a city ordinance or policy enacted in 1984, prohibiting residences on city park land, was the reason for the vacancy.
Apparently, the last renter left Unit #2 in 2007 and the city claimed it was unable to re-rent it because of the prohibition. In its infinite wisdom, the city has just left it vacant and decaying. Surely, the city could have circumvented this prohibition, had the city been willing, and collected 18 years of rent instead. There is more irony about Unit #2 later on.
There is a fifth living unit that appears to be a converted garage for Unit #1. Whether or not the city is collecting rent from this tenant is unknown.
Beyond all that, the site overall looks like a rural junkyard. It is overgrown. There is a small building with no windows or doors. It is covered with sheets of unpainted plywood. There are cars and boats and small trailers and a variety of junk everywhere. On face value, it looks more like a rural slum from the dirt road, belying the spectacular views behind the structures.
The retired couple is attempting to have their unit included in the historical designation along with the Corbin house. Unit #4 does not appear to have any claim to any historical status, at least considering the history according to the tenants of Unit #3.
Historical Resource Technical Report, updated January 2025, on 4101 Lomaland Drive #1-4
The Historical Resource Technical Report, contained a wealth of information about the properties and lots of pictures.
Click to access HRTR%204101%20Lomaland_Updated%2001.2025v2%20reduced.pdf
The report says the following about Unit #4. “The ca. 1979 constructed 4101 Lomaland Drive #4 appears to have been built as an attachment to Unit #3 forming a duplex.” The report repeatedly states that the addition of Unit #4 to Unit #3 negates the possibility of Unit #3 being designated historic. Certainly Unit #4 would not qualify either.
The report also describes a “Unit #4 Auxiliary Studio Shed (4a) – The shed roof auxiliary studio is located east of Unit #4 and consists of a single room studio on a cast-in-place concrete slab foundation.” This structure was not immediately visible during the site visit. It is not clear if the city is collecting rent on this studio as well.
The surprise is Unit #2.
Report to the Historical Board – March 27, 2025
The March 27, 2025, staff “Report to the Historical Board” recommended historical designation for Unit #2 but not any of the other structures. Unit #2 is the RoseVollmer/Richard Lareau House. Go here to see the report: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/sr-4101-lomaland-drive-final-combined.pdf
Richard Lareau was designated a city Master Architect. He designed Unit #2 that the City of San Diego has left to decay for 18 years. What need is there for fiction when real life is serves up such stories.
The Corrs couple in Unit #3 said councilmember Campbell’s office informed them that the city planned to demolish the buildings in 2026. The drive to obtain an historical designation is an effort to block the city’s plans.
Editor: The Historic Resources Board is meeting Thursday, May 22nd. See this link for meeting details.
I would like to clarify the “property taxes” being paid by the tenants. They are actually paying “possessory interest taxes.”
When a private entity leases publicly owned, tax-exempt property (such as land owned by the City of San Diego), they may be subject to a possessory interest (PI) tax. This tax is assessed by the County of San Diego. The City of San Diego does not pay property taxes on land it owns within the city limits. Private use of City land triggers PI Tax. The San Diego County Assessor’s Office determines the value of a PI and assesses the tax accordingly directly to the tenant. The City does not participate in the assessment or collection of PI taxes; it’s solely between the tenant and the County. This is why it’s not a part of the rent. Every agreement the City executes says that the agreement may be subject to possessory interest taxes.
Most everyone from house rentals to hotels who are on City land pays possessory interest taxes.
Thank you very much for that clarifying information.
These properties are along my daily walking route. As the years have gone by so too has the upkeep of this property. More and more vehicles, boats, trailers show up and more and more construction debris piles up. With all the recent fires it makes me wonder what liability exposure the city has with this property. Piles of wood, in dry brush and coastal winds sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
As far as the idea these tenants are surprised by an eviction… how is that possible on City Land that is on a month to month lease? Seems like they should have Ben evicted when the city took ownership of the land. They have had a tax payer subsidized gift for decades and in return want to block the city from following the law? Why not say it was a nice run and move on. Or at the very least maintain the property and show the City and its residents your commitment to maintaining precious city property.
After the city evicted the tenants of one house, the city refused to maintain it and it fell into an abandoned existence. The other tenants began placing items around its front to make it look used to dissuade homeless people or others from trying to break in.
Plus, Mary, if you have daily walks around there, you must live in the some of the very nice housing in nearby neighborhoods. Then why dump on others who are less fortunate who happen to have lived in these buildings, while you have your own “nice run?”
Frank why do I need to follow the rules while the City and residents of 4101 do not? It is City Park property. To be enjoyed by all City residents, not just the few lucky enough to be in those delapadated structures. At the very least they could have kept up the property instead of letting it look like a squatters camp. City Park land with an amazing view few of us can afford. It belongs to all of us. Clean up the dump site, reduce the liability and allow all of us to enjoy.
Seems to me, all I hear from you is jealousy.
You misunderstand jealousy. Sounds like you live in one of these illegal houses.
I’m curious how these places are along your daily walking route.
The dirt road that leads to them is a dead end. Very little, if anything, can be seen from Lomaland. The only structure visible from Lomaland is the small converted garage. If you walk on the dirt path into the park, downhill on Lomaland from the dirt road, it would be very hard to see anything as the path is well below where the buildings sit.
Take the walk with a dog that wants to smell everything. The dumpster and area around the Public Safety building are of particular interest. How far down the road do you think I need to walk to see the garbage piled and vehicles strewn? Are you trying to claim that the area is being well cared for and maintained?
I just saw this response.
In answer to your question, you would have to walk quite a way down that dirt road. The road turns abruptly left. You can see the converted garage from Lomaland Drive, but unless you take the time to walk down the dirt road and turn left, you can’t see much else. Apparently, you’ve taken a deliberate look. That would have required walking by the “Private Property” sign under the four mailboxes right at the entrance to the dirt road.
Certainly, this dirt road would not be a road for a regular dog walk. The logical walk would be down Lomaland until you can turn off on the park path, well below these sites.
And no, I did not claim the area was well cared for and maintained. In fact, I agree the area is a mess. But, since the mess does not appear to be any kind of hazard and it is out of public view, where is the problem for you?
Since you are accusing me of tresspassing on “Private Property” to see the state of the buildings at 4101 – I paid closer attention this morning on my walk. Standing on Lomaland you look right down the driveway.
There is a small, assume converted, garage. The siding looks okay the roof looks like it needed to be replaced decades ago. A satellite dish communicating with the 90’s perched on the roofs edge. Beyond that is a fence that is falling down. A sun shade sags sadly above the fence. Past that a building in neglect.
The theme of the propertty is negelect. Which you can clearly see from Lomaland. If your dog wants to sniff around the mailboxes the neglect only appears to get worse the deeper you look. Why not maintin the property? Their rent is subsidized by taxpayers, use that savings to clean up. I noticed some of the construction debris that builds up in the driveway is no longer there, that is a start. I didn’t see the derelect boat, moved or overgrown I don’t know.
None of this changes the fact the City’s Charter does not allow priviate residences on city park land. Your original article was about these residents being suprised by evections… how is that be possible?
And the “Private Property” sign you seem worried about is on very public land. Anyone should feel free to walk right past that sign.
The surf shack at cliffs edge at Garbage Beach @ 4515 Ladera Street is also owned by the city, is located on city park land and is being rented month to month. I looked up city records and the last city lease in 2018 names Tom Minor as tenant. Problem is Tom passed away in 2013. His obituary stated that he had a second home in Palm Springs.
My question is what is happening with this rental. There is no historic plaque displayed and it really looks like it is being gamed by surfers. I have personally observed a new motor home and expensive luxury vehicles parked on the property. Why don’t you check that story Geoff?
Thanks
Take a look at the staff report from March of this year. They say that house is not eligible for historic designation.
https://sandiego.cfwebtools.com/images/files/HRTR%204101%20Lomaland_Updated%2001.2025v2%20reduced.pdf
The City of San Diego, Historical Resources Board designated three of the buildings on the Lomaland property at their May 2025 meeting. The City Council needs to change the stated MISSION of the park to include the historical context of the land before it became a City Park and then direct the City Park and Recreation Department to rent all the designated buildings and adopt a policy to preserve them using the rent money.
Ron, you saw our report : https://obrag.org/2025/05/historic-designation-for-rare-point-loma-sites/